Saturday, May 31, 2014

Clermont student's notebook shows plot to kill teachers

Watch Weather on the Nines for your best local forecast, always less than 10 minutes away.

Clermont student's notebook shows plot to kill teachers

By Dave D'Marko and Mike Westfall, Team Coverage
Last Updated: Thursday, May 29, 2014, 5:51 PM
Now we are actually seeing a student’s plan to kill teachers, staff, and himself at East Ridge Middle School, at his Lake County school.
At least one page of the plan was covered in blood, and included this map of East Ridge Middle School, each target marked with an "x" where he planned to shoot five teachers.
Tonight, there also are still questions tonight about why parents weren’t notified when the plot was discovered 10 days ago.
School officials are saying they don’t think students were ever in danger; despite the fact that he had a knife.
When the boy showed his "hit list" and other plans to classmates, they said some of the pages were covered in blood.
Law enforcement released the handwritten notes of that middle school student that Lake County investigators say detailed a plot of exactly how the boy planned to kill his teachers and others at East Ridge Middle School in Clermont.
Three students say the boy showed them what he called a little black book, filled with plans for world domination, drawing of guns and dead people.
While he was showing the pages covered in blood, new reports say the student pulled at a knife and smiled.
That little black book also contained a map the boy drew of the school and a list of the five teachers the student planned to kill, along with the following:
Come in through grass area.
Go to office, kill everyone there.
Then go to math/history building, kill [redacted], [redacted].
Go to science building, [redacted].
Go to [redacted].
Leave.
It said he’d start by killing everyone in the office, then go to the math and history buildings killing two teachers. The next x was a science teacher, followed by drama teacher.
We have redacted the names of the teachers listed in the notebook, in accordance with our Crime Guidelines.
Deputies say the last part of his plan was to kill himself in front of his classmates in the cafeteria.
What’s upset parents, is they were never told about the situation.
"I mean if your son or daughter was a student here don't you think you'd want to know," concerned parent Rodney Belding said.
Today I found out there are no policies outlining what the school has to tell parents, it’s left up to principals.
"You have to be aware of what's going on at the school, I mean as a parent you have to," Chris Persad said. "You can't hide things and when they happen people are going to say oh my God! It's crazy."
Sheriff’s deputies went to the child’s home where they found no weapons. A school spokesperson says the knife the student had wasn’t a weapon either, but it is classified as a dangerous instrument.
According to the sheriff’s report he was suspended for ten days, and was in the process of being placed in an alternative school.
Citing student confidentiality rules a school spokesperson couldn’t tell me the student's status at this point. According to the Sheriff’s Office report however he was being taken to Lifestream here in Lake County for a psychiatric evaluation.
 

Michelle Obama Proudly And Wildly Waves The Flags Of Red Chinese Communism

Michelle Obama Proudly And Wildly Waves The Flags Of Red Chinese Communism

| March 31, 2014 | 90 Comments
Both Barack and Michelle Obama have a “flag problem” that has followed them around the entire time they have been campaigning for and serving in the White House. You will remember back in 2008 when Barack Obama adamantly refused to wear the American flag pin on his lapel like every other candidate.
barack-obama-refused-to-salute-american-flag
Remember this one? The Obama’s would rather you forget it…
Or how about this image from the campaign trail when Barack Obama was the only one with their hand not over their heart during the playing of the National Anthem? Even back then, the Obama’s were telling us who they where and what they believed…but America wouldn’t listen.
Now flash-forward to Michelle Obama’s 2014 trip to Communist Red China. Land of the deplorable human rights, persecution of Christians, and the demonic One Child Policy that kills girl babies.
michelle-obama-waves-communist-flag-china
A search on Google could not find one, single photo of Michelle Obama waving an American flag, much less two of them.
It was in this environment that Michelle Obama grasped a Communist Red Chinese flag in both hands, and got to jumpin’ and shoutin’ the likes of which she has never displayed for things American. There is no known image that exists of her doing the same thing with the American flag.
Michelle Obama has famously said that “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” Imagine the only time being proud of America is when you get access to limitless taxpayer funds to fuel your lavish lifestyle.
America, both Barack and Michelle Obama continue to tell you who they are…will you ever believe them?

has declared MB TERRORIST ORG ! Why is he still working at WH ?

1h
has declared MB TERRORIST ORG ! Why is he still working at WH ?

MILLER: Gun grabber says mags over 10 rounds are only for ‘domestic terrorists and gangsters’

MILLER: Gun grabber says mags over 10 rounds are only for ‘domestic terrorists and gangsters’

New Jersey gun control bills increase to wedge Chris Christie

Follow Us On
facebookFacebook
Question of the Day

Should Congress make English the official language of the U.S.?

View results
Gun-control advocates frequently use scare tactic to mislead the public into supporting laws that unnecessarily restrict Second Amendment rights.
In New Jersey, the most stringent firearms laws in the country don’t satisfy the rabid activists there. They are pushing to lower the legal magazine size from 15 to 10.
“Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size,” Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, told NJ.com on Friday. The group’s sole purpose is pushing for more gun control. Its primary tactic is to hold “prayer vigils” outside firearms stores.
“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,”  Mr. Miller claimed.
Mr. Miller neglected to mention that virtually all law enforcement uses firearms with more than 10 rounds. And of course, so do millions of law-abiding Americans.
Frank Jack Fiamingo is the president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, a grass-roots gun rights group that opposes the magazine ban.
“We want the innocent homeowners to be able to defend themselves against a group of thugs determined to invade their home and hurt or kill them and their family,” he told me.
“If it takes that individual 30-round magazines to offer a proper defense, families are certainly well within their rights to own them.”
The firearms industry has been fighting back against these new limits to magazine size that have passed in the past year in states such as New York (seven rounds) and Colorado (15 rounds).
Larry Keane is the general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents firearms and ammunition manufacturers.
“The Justice Department studies of the federal ban on modern sporting rifles — which also restricted magazine capacity — showed that restricting the size of a magazine by an arbitrary number, such as 10, does not reduce crime,” Mr. Keane said, referring to the industry’s preferred term for so-called assault weapons.
“It simply limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families.”
In New Jersey, gun-grabber activists have been effective in getting new laws because they have strong allies in the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
It is expected that political pressure will increase to pass more gun-control bills in order to put Gov. Chris Christie in a tight spot. Mr. Christie is considering a run for president as a Republican, which is a nonstarter for someone who is viewed as anti-gun.
The political battles have already started.
Story Continues →
View Entire Story

SHOCKER: Obama Preparing To Attack Veterans

SHOCKER: Obama Preparing To Attack Veterans

Are Veterans Administration hacks PAID to kill veterans?


Warning: This video contains war images that may be disturbing to some viewers.
Why would Obama’s Department of Homeland Security need two billion rounds of ammunition? Or why would the Department of Agriculture need submachine guns and ballistic body armor? Or why is Obama supplying 13,000 MRAPs—Armored mine resistant vehicles, valued at $500,000 each—to police departments coast to coast, free of charge? In a word: Veterans.
An unearthed DHS document from 2009 identifies the number one enemy of America: not al-Qaeda, not drug cartels, not violent gangs, but everyday veterans.
Last week, an Indiana sheriffs department supplied with one of Obama’s armored MRAPs openly admitted that veterans are the enemy!
Do you think the so-called “death panels”—now found to have existed in almost two dozen VA hospitals nationwide—are an accident? A whistleblower says they have been in existence for years! Why? Because VA executives, already making six figures, don’t get bonuses unless they place veterans on secret waiting lists! That’s right, Veterans Administration hacks are PAID to kill veterans!
And apparently everyone knew about the secret waiting lists—including Obama—everyone except the veterans who were waiting for care…many of whom eventually died.
But this is only half of the story of what Barack Obama and his minions have been doing and plan on doing to veterans!
Presidential directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” revealed on Wednesday, allows Obama to deploy the military in the event of so-called “civil unrest”—that is, if his political enemies, veterans, get out of hand.
Think about it: Obama will deploy the military to fight against former military—veterans. Will the military follow Obama’s unconstitutional orders, or will they turn on their Commander-in-Chief?
Time will tell. But if the military won’t act, Obama can call some “outside” sources—foreign governments that are aligned with him ideologically—for reinforcements.
And these “outside sources” just happen to fly a flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle, symbol of the Communist Party.
Watch the above exclusive video for the full story.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

SHOCKER: Obama Preparing To Attack Veterans Are Veterans Administration hacks PAID to kill veterans?

SHOCKER: Obama Preparing To Attack Veterans

Are Veterans Administration hacks PAID to kill veterans?


Warning: This video contains war images that may be disturbing to some viewers.
Why would Obama’s Department of Homeland Security need two billion rounds of ammunition? Or why would the Department of Agriculture need submachine guns and ballistic body armor? Or why is Obama supplying 13,000 MRAPs—Armored mine resistant vehicles, valued at $500,000 each—to police departments coast to coast, free of charge? In a word: Veterans.
An unearthed DHS document from 2009 identifies the number one enemy of America: not al-Qaeda, not drug cartels, not violent gangs, but everyday veterans.
Last week, an Indiana sheriffs department supplied with one of Obama’s armored MRAPs openly admitted that veterans are the enemy!
Do you think the so-called “death panels”—now found to have existed in almost two dozen VA hospitals nationwide—are an accident? A whistleblower says they have been in existence for years! Why? Because VA executives, already making six figures, don’t get bonuses unless they place veterans on secret waiting lists! That’s right, Veterans Administration hacks are PAID to kill veterans!
And apparently everyone knew about the secret waiting lists—including Obama—everyone except the veterans who were waiting for care…many of whom eventually died.
But this is only half of the story of what Barack Obama and his minions have been doing and plan on doing to veterans!
Presidential directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” revealed on Wednesday, allows Obama to deploy the military in the event of so-called “civil unrest”—that is, if his political enemies, veterans, get out of hand.
Think about it: Obama will deploy the military to fight against former military—veterans. Will the military follow Obama’s unconstitutional orders, or will they turn on their Commander-in-Chief?
Time will tell. But if the military won’t act, Obama can call some “outside” sources—foreign governments that are aligned with him ideologically—for reinforcements.
And these “outside sources” just happen to fly a flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle, symbol of the Communist Party.
Watch the above exclusive video for the full story.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Bergdahl release arrangement could threaten the safety of Americans, Republicans say

Bergdahl release arrangement could threaten the safety of Americans, Republicans say

By , Saturday, May 31, 2:14 PM

Amid jubilation Saturday over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from captivity by the Taliban, senior Republicans on Capitol Hill said they were troubled by the means by which it was accomplished, which was a deal to release five Afghan detainees from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Top Republicans on the Senate and House armed services committees went so far as to accuse President Obama of having broken the law, which requires the administration to notify Congress before any transfers from Guantanamo are carried out.
“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James M. Inhofe (Okla.), said in a joint statement.
Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees’ transfer until after it occurred.
The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.
Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent. However, the administration and some Democrats had pressed for them to be loosened, in part to give them more flexibility to negotiate for Bergdahl’s release.
A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.
“Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible,” the official said. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that the detainees transferred from Guantanamo to Qatar, where they are to stay for at least a year, “are hardened terrorists who have the blood of Americans and countless Afghans on their hands. I am eager to learn what precise steps are being taken to ensure that these vicious and violent Taliban extremists never return to the fight against the United States and our partners or engage in any activities that can threaten the prospects for peace and security in Afghanistan.”
Beyond this individual instance, some raised the larger question of whether it is sound policy for the United States to have, in the words of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), “negotiated with terrorists.”
Rogers said the action marked a “fundamental shift in U.S. policy.”
© The Washington Post Company

Obama's Absurd Rules of Engagement to Get Even More Outrageous For U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan...

Obama's Absurd Rules of Engagement to Get Even More Outrageous For U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan...

AP
AP
Via Washington Times :
The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.
The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.
The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.
“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader. [...]
A rare look at today’s classified rules of engagement is contained in the huge investigative file on the Afghan Taliban’s downing of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter last year that killed 30 U.S. troops, including 17 members of SEAL Team 6. The report notes service members’ frustration at seeing people they knew were Taliban fighters during the August 2012 operation in Afghanistan’s Tangi Valley, but they were denied permission to shoot.
An AH-64 Apache gunship pilot said he saw the spot from where Taliban operatives fired the rocket-propelled grenade that felled the chopper.
“Due to [rules of engagement] and tactical directives, I couldn’t fire at the building where I thought the [shooter] was, so I aimed directly to the west of the building,” the pilot testified, according to transcripts obtained by The Washington Times.
During the battle that preceded the shootdown, the crew of an AC-130 gunship spotted two armed Taliban fighters who were moving into new positions.

The War on America’s Military Veterans, Waged with SWAT Teams, Surveillance and Neglect

The War on America’s Military Veterans, Waged with SWAT Teams, Surveillance and Neglect

thank you veterans
Image Source: Change.org
Just in time for Memorial Day, we’re once again being treated to a generous serving of praise and grandstanding by politicians and corporations eager to go on record as being supportive of our veterans. Patriotic platitudes aside, however, America has done a deplorable job of caring for her veterans. We erect monuments for those who die while serving in the military, yet for those who return home, there’s little honor to be found.
The plight of veterans today is deplorable, with large numbers of them impoverished, unemployed, traumatized mentally and physically, struggling with depression, thoughts of suicide, and marital stress, homeless (a third of all homeless Americans are veterans), subjected to sub-par treatment at clinics and hospitals, and left to molder while their paperwork piles up within Veterans Administration (VA) offices.
While President Obama has now declared that he “will not stand” for the mistreatment of veterans under his watch, the time for words is long past. As Slate political correspondent John Dickerson observed, these inexcusable delays represent “a failure of one of the most basic transactions government is supposed to perform: keeping a promise to those who were asked to protect our very form of government.”
Then again, as I detail in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the government has been breaking its promises to the American people for a long time now, starting with its most sacred covenant to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet if the government won’t abide by its commitment to respect our constitutional rights to be free from government surveillance and censorship, if it completely tramples on our right to due process and fair hearings, and routinely denies us protection from roadside strip searches and militarized police, why should anyone expect the government to treat our nation’s veterans with respect and dignity?
Indeed, in recent years, military servicemen and women—many of whom are decorated—have found themselves increasingly targeted for surveillance, censorship, threatened with incarceration or involuntary commitment, labeled as extremists and/or mentally ill, and stripped of their Second Amendment rights, all for daring to voice their concerns about the alarming state of our union and the erosion of our freedoms.
For example, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle tracks military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and characterizes them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
Unfortunately, as we’ve seen in recent years, the problem with depicting veterans as potential enemy combatants is that any encounter with a military veteran can escalate very quickly into an explosive and deadly situation—at least, on the part of law enforcement.
For example, Jose Guerena, a Marine who served in two tours in Iraq, was killed in 2011 after an Arizona SWAT team kicked open the door of his home during a mistaken drug raid and opened fire. Apart from his military background, Guerena had had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.
John Edward Chesney, a 62-year-old Vietnam veteran, was killed by a SWAT team allegedly responding to a call that the Army veteran was standing in his apartment window waving what looked like a semi-automatic rifle. SWAT officers fired 12 rounds into Chesney’s apartment window. It turned out that the gun Chesney reportedly pointed was a “realistic-looking mock assault rifle.”
Ramon Hooks, a 25-year-old Iraq war veteran, was using an air rifle gun for target practice outside when a Homeland Security Agent, allegedly house shopping in the area, reported him as an active shooter. Hooks was arrested, his air rifle pellets and toy gun confiscated, and charges filed against him for “criminal mischief.”
Although no toy guns were involved in Brandon Raub’s case, his fact scenario is even more chilling, given that he was targeted for exercising his First Amendment rights on Facebook. The 26-year-old decorated Marine actually found himself interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys.
On August 16, 2012, a swarm of local police, Secret Service and FBI agents handcuffed and transported Raub to police headquarters, then to a medical center, where he was held against his will due to alleged concerns that his Facebook posts were “terrorist in nature.” Meanwhile, in a kangaroo court hearing that turned a deaf ear to Raub’s explanations about the fact that his Facebook posts were being read out of context, Raub was sentenced to up to 30 days’ further confinement in a psychiatric ward. Thankfully, The Rutherford Institute came to Raub’s assistance and brought about his release. Even so, within days of Raub being seized and forcibly held in a VA psych ward, news reports started surfacing of other veterans having similar experiences.
A federal judge actually dismissed Raub’s lawsuit challenging the government’s “Operation Vigilant Eagle” campaign and its increasing view of veterans as potential domestic terrorists as “far-fetched.” Yet what may sound far-fetched to the courts is a grim reality to Americans who are daily being targeted for daring to exercise their constitutional rights to speak their minds, criticize the government, and defend themselves and their families against over-reaching government surveillance and heavy-handed police tactics.
It’s ironic, isn’t it, that we raise our young people to believe that it is their patriotic duty to defend freedom abroad by serving in the military, then when they return home, bruised and battle-scarred and suddenly serious about defending their freedoms at home, we treat them like terrorists. Then again, perhaps it’s not so much ironic as it is tragic and pathetic—a sad tribute, indeed, to those willing to put their lives on the line.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).
Copyright © 2014 The Rutherford Institute
Courtesy of LewRockwell.com

Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Share this:

(2nd take) Barack Obama Has Succeeded Because He Is A Strong Black Brotha

the islamic terrorist in the white house funds terrorist to kill us remember hillary was the one who gave them the money

The Scandal That Is Foreign Aid


Just two weeks after the US Embassy in Egypt was ransacked by terrorists and a band of Egyptian thugs, President Obama announced that he would provide Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood government with an emergency infusion of $450 million in US aid.

Two weeks may be too long for the Administration to remember these things, but Obama’s announcement came just hours after Egypt’s new president Morsi delivered, from the podium of the UN General Assembly, a 37 minute pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli rant, in which he appealed to the United Nations to use its “principal responsibility” to help stem free speech that might offend what Islamic sanctities hold sacred. In other words, he called to rein in the hated American people’s ability to say and write what they like – or, put another way, attack the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Within hours of Obama’s announcement, Congressional Republicans, led by Kay Granger of Texas, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, raised enough of a stink to slow it down, if not derail it permanently.
Egypt has received more US foreign aid, since 1979, than any country except Israel – about $2 billion a year (and excluding military aid to Iraq and Afghanistan). After Egyptians overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak last year and installed the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama Administration pledged an extra $1 billion to bolster the new government’s transition to democracy, largely to relieve Egypt’s debts to the United States. The $450 million Obama pledged last week is intended to further relieve Egypt’s faltering economy and would be in addition to a $4.8 billion loan to Egypt from the International Monetary Fund.
Obama’s new Egyptian pledge is just a drop in the bucket in a $19 billion boondoggle that is so laden with corruption and waste that the entire enterprise should be a public outrage, and it ought to be abolished or completely restructured.
Former Reagan-era Ambassador Eugene Douglas, who has visited Africa dozens of times both as a diplomat and as a businessman, and who has closely observed US foreign aid and its impact for years, told me, “the system is rotten and has become just another piggy bank for the ‘one world’ progressive college graduates who find it so uplifting to act out fantasies with taxpayer funds and virtually no practical accountability.”
US foreign aid is no stranger to criticism. It was originally intended to promote US foreign policy but is increasingly used for political and humanitarian purposes which often have little to do with American interests. It is questionable whether it has any positive impact on US foreign policy; nobody knows how much of what we send abroad is stolen, converted to another use, or actually reaches its intended destination.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department entity that administers foreign aid, has admitted that it really has no idea how much US taxpayers’ money is used for its intended purpose and how much lines the pockets of corrupt politicians or winds up in Swiss banks. According to USAID’s Inspector General, the agency failed, in 2009, to conduct mandatory annual audits of about $500 million in funds transferred to 52 foreign countries because “it was unable to produce an inventory of all organizations it gives money to.” People familiar with the way USAID works believe the Inspector General’s comment is vastly understated.
Excepting Israel, eight countries receiving the most US foreign aid are the eight most corrupt countries in the world – Sudan, Kenya, Pakistan, Uganda, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Columbia, according to www.AIDMonitor.com, a watchdog group. Even worse, nobody has any idea whether US aid actually does further US national security interests. A 2006 report from the Government Accountability Office, for example, criticized both the State Department and the Defense Department for failing to measure how the funding actually contributes to U.S. goals.
One thing US aid does not do is instill any sort of loyalty to the United States. During September of this year, anti-US demonstrations unfolded in 29 countries, all with large Muslim populations. Those 29 countries received, over three years between 2008 and 2010, a total of $29 billion dollars in assistance from the US (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, which between them received $44 billion over the same period). And did any of those countries support us in their votes in the United Nations? Only one – Turkey – voted, during 2011, with the US more than half the time, and only four – Georgia, Ukraine, Peru, and El Salvador – more than 25%.
Or how about Bashar Assad’s Syria, one of the most repressive regimes in the region engaged in killing tens of thousands of its own innocent civilians, including women and children, and who is host to a regular infiltration base for jihadists into Iraq – jihadists whose calling is to murder US soldiers. Over the past three years, Syria received $84 million in US aid.
And what does the Obama Administration want to do about it? Give them more money. In a speech last week to the Group of 8 Nations in New York, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said we needed to provide more support to governments that have emerged from the Arab Spring, citing specifically Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.
Corruption has always been the bane of foreign aid. Consider Sudan, a sub-Saharan country that gets close to $1 billion a year and which ranks first on the list of corrupt governments. A researcher for the Council on Foreign Relations reported just a couple of months ago:
[S]ince 2005, [Sudanese] state officials and government contractors have stolen an estimated $4 billion from treasury coffers—an amount equivalent to 30 percent of the country’s annual economic output. In a particularly egregious example, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning squandered millions of dollars as grain contracts, meant to stave off an anticipated food shortage, was instead awarded to shell companies.
The African Union estimated as long ago as 2002 that corruption of foreign assistance was costing the continent $150 billion a year. Since then it has only gotten worse.
Nobody really knows how much aid money just disappears, but it is a sizable part of the budget. Perhaps even worse, a large portion of aid is administered through “Beltway Bandit” contractors, enriching former bureaucrats with the money intended for poverty-stricken and destitute parts of the world. These firms administer a great percentage of USAID money and; together with their army of high-priced and well-connected Washington lobbyists, lawyers, public relations experts, accountants, and money managers; keep international aid at levels way beyond where it should be, and for purposes that have little to do with US national security or humanitarian needs. Call them, if you will, the international poverty pimps, whose mission is to do well by making Congress think they are doing good.
These are not small entrepreneurs undertaking little projects in the African bush. Ten American for-profit government contractors each received over $200 million from USAID last year and together received $3.19 billion to administer “development” projects; those companies are often run and staffed by former USAID employees under what might be described as a second retirement system. By the time they take out their overhead, fees for the lawyers, lobbyists and public relations specialists, conduct environmental and feasibility studies, pay for first class travel for inspection visits and to attend high-end conferences at the world’s best watering holes, little of the taxpayers’ money is left to do what the dollars were intended for.
Worse, these Beltway bandits become a breeding and feeding ground for left-leaning, progressive, anti-capitalist do-gooders to spread their gospel among the downtrodden countries of the world. To its credit, the Obama Administration has at least argued that the contractors’ roles should be reduced, although little has actually happened. And USAID is itself virtually incapable of running the projects, meaning without the middle men, it is likely that even more of the money would disappear.
A case in point is a 120 mile-long road built in South Sudan with USAID money last year connecting Jubo, the capital, with Uganda – the only paved road in the country – by the Louis Berger Group, a multi-million dollar international government contractor. The initial budget was $87 million, but the project wound up costing $225 million, most of which went to non-Sudanese contractors.
According to former US Diplomat Eugene Douglas, now a regular visitor to South Sudan and involved in several companies doing business there, "it would have been far better, instead of building just one $225 million road, to have built a gravel road, using local contractors and at a fraction of the cost, and repaired hundreds of miles of feeder roads, essential to provide access to markets and other services by the bulk of the population.” But USAID officials just don’t think that way.
Although US foreign aid may be very good for the contractors, it is very bad for poor countries – or at least the general population of poor countries. Economist Dambisa Moyo, a native of Zambia and an expert on foreign assistance in Africa wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal that over the past 60 years some $1 trillion has been transferred from Western countries to Africa. But real per-capita income is lower today than it was in the 1970s, and more than one half of the population of the entire continent lives on less than one dollar a day – nearly twice the number of 20 years ago.
Moyo makes no bones about the fact that foreign aid is “an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster… it has made the poor poorer, and the growth slower. It has left African countries debt-laden, inflation-prone, vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets and unattractive to higher quality investment.”
With that indictment, should we be surprised that Obama wants to throw even more money at it?

South Sudan officials have stolen $4 billion: president

South Sudan officials have stolen $4 billion: president

JUBA Mon Jun 4, 2012 7:14pm EDT

Related Topics

(Reuters) - South Sudanese officials have "stolen" an estimated $4 billion of public money and should return it to salvage the young nation's reputation and help lift its people out of poverty, the president said in a letter seen on Monday.
The request came as the central African country, which seceded from Sudan less than a year ago, is scrambling for cash to make up for the loss of almost all state revenues with the shutdown of its oil output in January.
Critics have accused the government of President Salva Kiir doing little to clamp down on widespread corruption that has hampered efforts to build the war-torn state from scratch and jumpstart development.
In a letter to 75 current and former officials dated May 3, Kiir offered amnesty for officials and individuals with government ties who returned the money.
"An estimated $4 billion are unaccounted for or, simply put, stolen by former and current officials, as well as corrupt individuals with close ties to government officials," Kiir said in the letter obtained by Reuters.
Reliable figures are hard to come by in South Sudan, but the figure could amount to around one third of the estimated total oil receipts allotted to the South between the 2005 peace deal that ended decades of civil war and independence last year.
"Most of these funds have been taken out of the country and deposited in foreign accounts. Some have purchased properties, often paid in cash," the letter said.
A senior South Sudan government official confirmed to Reuters that the letter was sent to current, former and deputy ministers in the last ten days.
Decades of conflict and economic neglect have left the nation of about 8.6 million people with some of the worst health and education statistics on the planet. Few paved roads exist outside the capital, Juba.
Secession from Sudan last July sparked widespread optimism among South Sudanese that their country would at last head toward prosperity, but lingering disputes with Khartoum and corruption have hobbled the economy since then.
South Sudan's Information Minister Barnaba Marial Benjamin said over half of the estimated $4 billion was from the country's so-called "durra" scandal, in which a large government purchase of sorghum was allegedly never distributed.
"It is a colossal sum," he said.
"WE FORGOT WHAT WE FOUGHT FOR"
South Sudan's ruling party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), largely consists of former rebels who fought against Khartoum. Few have deep experience with civilian institutions or economic management.
Financial oversight, where it exists at all, is weak.
"We fought for freedom, justice and equality. Many of our friends died to achieve these objectives. Yet, once we got to power, we forgot what we fought for and began to enrich ourselves at the expense of our people," the letter read.
"The credibility of our government is on the line."
From 2005 until independence, Khartoum and Juba officially split oil revenues evenly - giving the South roughly $2 billion per year.
In November, South Sudan said it had contracted oil sales worth $3.2 billion for the period between July 9 and December 31. It is unclear how much was actually sold.
The landlocked country took control of about 350,000 barrels a day of oil output - around 75 percent of Sudan's total - at partition, but failed to agree how much it should pay Khartoum to use pipelines running through Sudan.
That dispute prompted the new nation to shut off its production in January, instantly erasing about 98 percent of state revenues and the country's dominant source of dollars.
Although the government has adopted an austerity budget to help curtail spending, a leaked document from the World Bank estimates foreign reserves will run out in July. South Sudanese officials insist the assessment overstates the danger.
South Sudan's anti-corruption committee has recovered an estimated $60 million from fraudulent transactions and misappropriation of funds by government officials, the president's office said in a June 1 press release.
It said Kiir sent eight letters to heads of state in Africa, the United States, Middle East, and Europe in January seeking assistance in the recovery of stolen funds by current and former South Sudanese officials.
(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy; Writing by Hereward Holland and Alexander Dziadosz; editing by Ron Askew)

obama funds terrorism

Security Assistance:

State and DOD Need to Assess How the Foreign Military Financing Program for Egypt Achieves U.S. Foreign Policy and Security Goals

GAO-06-437: Published: Apr 11, 2006. Publicly Released: May 12, 2006.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Joseph A. Christoff
(202) 512-8979
contact@gao.gov

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov
Since 1979, Egypt has received about $60 billion in military and economic assistance with about $34 billion in the form of foreign military financing (FMF) grants that enable Egypt to purchase U.S.-manufactured military goods and services. In this report, GAO (1) describes the types and amounts of FMF assistance provided to Egypt; (2) assesses the financing arrangements used to provide FMF assistance to Egypt; and (3) evaluates how the U.S. assesses the program's contribution to U.S. foreign policy and security goals.
Egypt is currently among the largest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance, along with Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Egypt has received about $1.3 billion annually in U.S. foreign military financing (FMF) assistance and has purchased a variety of U.S.-manufactured military goods and services such as Apache helicopters, F-16 aircraft, and M1A1 tanks, as well as the training and maintenance to support these systems. The United States has provided Egypt with FMF assistance through a statutory cash flow financing arrangement that permits flexibility in how Egypt acquires defense goods and services from the United States. In the past, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) accumulated large undisbursed balances in this program. Because the flexibilities of cash flow financing permit Egypt to pay for its purchases over time, Egypt currently has agreements for U.S. defense articles and services worth over $2 billion--some of which are not due for full payment until 2011. The Departments of State (State) and Defense (DOD) have not conducted an assessment to identify the risks and impacts of a potential shift in FMF funding. Officials and many experts assert that the FMF program to Egypt supports U.S. foreign policy and security goals; however, State and DOD do not assess how the program specifically contributes to these goals. U.S. and Egyptian officials cited examples of Egypt's support for U.S. interests, such as maintaining Egyptian-Israeli peace and providing access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace. DOD has not determined how it will measure progress in achieving key goals such as interoperability and modernizing Egypt's military. For example, the U.S. Central Command, the responsible military authority, defines modernization as the ratio of U.S.-to-Soviet equipment in Egypt's inventory and does not include other potentially relevant factors, such as readiness or military capabilities. Achieving interoperability in Egypt is complicated by the lack of a common definition of interoperability and limitations on some types of sensitive equipment transfers. Given the longevity and magnitude of FMF assistance to Egypt, evaluating the degree to which the program meets its goals would be important information for congressional oversight, particularly as Congress assesses the balance between economic and military assistance to Egypt as well as the impact on U.S. foreign policy interests.

Status Legend:

More Info
  • Review Pending
  • Open
  • Closed - implemented
  • Closed - not implemented

Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: Given the longevity of the FMF program, its relatively high appropriation levels, the strategic importance of Egypt in the Middle East, and congressional interest in assessing the balance between economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, the Secretaries of State and Defense should conduct periodic program-level evaluations of the FMF program to Egypt. The United States should define specific objectives for the goals, and identify appropriate indicators that would demonstrate progress toward achieving those objectives. Specifically, the agencies should define the current and desired levels of modernization and interoperability the United States would like to achieve. This should include establishing benchmarks and targets for these and other goals.
Agency Affected: Department of State
Status: Closed - Implemented
Comments: According to a State official, State set up the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (F) in 2006. Since then, the agency has implemented a process to 1) establish goals and objectives for all foreign assistance and 2) evaluate progress toward those goals. State undertakes these initiatives through operational plans and performance plans. GAO review of the 2008 Performance Plan, 2009 Operational Plan, 2009 Performance Plan, and 2010 Operational Plan indicates that State has developed some measurable "indicators", goals for those indicators for the next two years, and performance on the indicators for the current year.
Recommendation: Given the longevity of the FMF program, its relatively high appropriation levels, the strategic importance of Egypt in the Middle East, and congressional interest in assessing the balance between economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, the Secretaries of State and Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact of potential shifts in future appropriations on the Egypt FMF program. This would include identifying risks, planning a course of action for mitigating those risks, and developing mechanisms to anticipate, identify, and react to change.
Agency Affected: Department of State
Status: Closed - Not Implemented
Comments: In response to our draft, State did not indicate whether it concurred with this recommendation. State is not aware of any plans to request lower funding levels in the future and, therefore, appears to consider it unnecessary to assess the impact of potential shifts in future appropriation on the Egypt FMF program.
Recommendation: Given the longevity of the FMF program, its relatively high appropriation levels, the strategic importance of Egypt in the Middle East, and congressional interest in assessing the balance between economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, the Secretaries of State and Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact of potential shifts in future appropriations on the Egypt FMF program. This would include identifying risks, planning a course of action for mitigating those risks, and developing mechanisms to anticipate, identify, and react to change.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Closed - Not Implemented
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendations but stated that GAO should direct them primarily to the Secretary of State. Furthermore, DOD has noted that decreases in future appropriations for the Egyptian FMF program could significantly affect the US ability to further national security interests, and, therefore, DoD consistently advocates full appropriation of the $1.3B annual FMF request for Egypt.
Recommendation: Given the longevity of the FMF program, its relatively high appropriation levels, the strategic importance of Egypt in the Middle East, and congressional interest in assessing the balance between economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, the Secretaries of State and Defense should conduct periodic program-level evaluations of the FMF program to Egypt. The United States should define specific objectives for the goals, and identify appropriate indicators that would demonstrate progress toward achieving those objectives. Specifically, the agencies should define the current and desired levels of modernization and interoperability the United States would like to achieve. This should include establishing benchmarks and targets for these and other goals.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Closed - Implemented
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendations but stated that GAO should direct them primarily to the Secretary of State. The agency planned to assist and work with the Department of State in implementing this recommendation. In February 2007, DOD noted that State had developed the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System and is collecting performance and budget data from Embassy operational plans. The plans noted in the Department of State's agency action above were generated using this (FACTS) system. USCENTCOM has developed a spreadsheet showing how U.S. and Egyptian strategies and objectives are met through Egyptian FMF-funded programs, including monitoring of programs that further goals for both interoperability and modernization.